I don't pretend to understand the economy. But about a month ago, John Stewart of The Daily Show had what I believe is a rather brilliant idea- a Trickle Up Theory. Rather than giving all this money to the banks, why not give it to those who owe money? The money could only be used to pay off their debts to the credit card companies and banks. The banks are happy because they have the money. The people are happy because they have less debt, or no debt.
Strangely, there's been very little discussion of this proposal- even to refute it as outlandish and stupid. Gwen didn't really respond. A segment on Gwen Ifill's show, Washington Week, repeated Stewart's suggestion, but without comment. A search of the web for "John Stewart" and "Trickle Up Theory" provides only 31 hits, and most of those are simply blogs like this one. For some reason the talking heads aren't discussing this. If it was a bad idea, you'd think they'd at least point out why it's a bad idea. Of course, if it's a bad idea for those in power, they wouldn't be talking about it.
We have here a unique opportunity. We have a president currently who is one of the most devout Presidents in recent memory, squarely grounding his beliefs and policies in the politics of Jesus, namely social justice. He is perhaps the first President to not be raised in a Christian home, but to have had a conversion experience as an adult, and he came to that place through his commitment to social justice while a community organizer. So this proposal is right up his alley.
There was this idea among the ancient Hebrews. It was installed to keep those in power from taking too much power, to stop the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few, to give rest for the people, to give them hope that they would not all their lives be in slavery or debt. It was a recognition that economics and justice are intimately connected, and was to take place every 49 or 50 years, depending on how you read the instructions. It was called the Year of Jubilee. And from the best of our records, it was never actually put into practice, save perhaps once, under King Josiah.
There were a number of aspects to this year. For our interest, you were not to permanently sell the land, for it belonged to the Lord. Every 50 years, if land had been sold since the last Jubilee, it reverted to the previous owner, if he'd been unable to buy it in the interim. On the Year of Jubilee, all slaves were to be released, for slavery at the time often occurred because a man had lost all his money, and had no other way to sustain himself. It is in this context that the Hebrews were counseled not to take advantage of their countrymen by charging interest on loans. Later, Deuteronomy expands on the Jubilee notion, suggesting that every seven years, all debts are to be released and forgiven! Most scholars believe this was what was referenced in the central notion of Jesus' ministry here on Earth, when he gave out his great mission statement, that he had come to bring release to the captives, good news to the poor, and, using the code words, "the acceptable year of the Lord's favor".
Now, obviously, our culture is significantly different from that of the ancient Hebrews. But is it truly too much of a stretch to suggest a resetting of the clock? In a land where we have never had a Year of Jubilee, is it too much to suggest that we now have a modified form of this, but in a capitalist manner in which everyone gains? The banks want their money, and they need it to remain viable, that we can continue to have any economy at all. We get that. But the people need not only money, but spending money, that they can continue to put that money into the economy and invest it. Without the people, the economy collapses as well. Let us then apply this rather central Biblical concept, and give the money to the banks, by eliminating the people's debt. Let us truly now do something new. Let us be the change we have been looking for.
Yes, we can.
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
10.30.2008
McCain: Off the Rails
In an amazing rally today, the McCain campaign showed that it was running off the rails completely. At one point he began to tell his audience something, and then decided, "Never mind." At a pivotal moment, he called for Michael - I mean "Joe the Plumber", to come on stage, and then learned that Joe wasn't actually at the rally. And then, in the middle of his speech, he said something that sounds a bit like, "abrgjik". I kid you not. Listen to the speech. I replayed it a few times, because it sounded so very odd. It sounded like suddenly, he was speaking the language of an outer space alien. Which frankly, raises far too many truly frightening scenarios for me to contemplate.
And yet, for all of these rhetorical errors, that was not the most glaring nor revolting mistake of the speech. In McCain's bid to try to make American tax law, McCain's past policies, and Obama all sound socialist, McCain is now bringing up an old radio interview of Obama's, where Obama also used the R-word- redistribution. But here's where McCain has entered truly dangerous waters.
In this interview, Obama very clearly is speaking of the legacy of slavery. He speaks of how the civil rights movement lead to freedom for blacks, and the right to vote, but didn't redistribute income- and this still remains to be done. He speaks of mistakes the founding fathers made- as everyone acknowledges who has any understanding of the ammendment process in the US constitution. This is of course particularly true with ammendments like the 14th.
I recognize that some conservatives feel that everything is now right with the world, between races, and in regards to civil rights. I suspect- I hope- that those conservatives are a minority even among conservatives. Most recognize that one of the horrible legacies of slavery has been lingering racism and a continued relegation of the majority of blacks to the lower economic classes. Beyond that, there is the slightly more controversial proposal of compensation for slavery. After all, not only was there the broken promise of "40 acers and a mule", but all the wealth in terms of human productivity that was stolen from African lands, and stolen from the Africans themselves, made into slaves. To date there has been no true payment to those defrauded by the American government and American people. But the proposal is not so controversial that is has not been considered by the American Congress at times.
Some combination of these issues is what Obama was obviously referring to in his radio interview. From the context, I suspect that it was more of the former- establishing economic parity between the races in America, to remove the blemish and stain of slavery that shackles us all- rather than the more touchy issue of compensation. He was trying to seek a more just society, and make up for the wrongs that America has perpetrated on her citizens of colour.
And this...this is what McCain was referring to today in his speech, when he said that Obama was being socialist.
Before McCain denigrates calls for racial equality, it might be helpful for him to remember the immortal words of Frederick Douglass.
And yet, for all of these rhetorical errors, that was not the most glaring nor revolting mistake of the speech. In McCain's bid to try to make American tax law, McCain's past policies, and Obama all sound socialist, McCain is now bringing up an old radio interview of Obama's, where Obama also used the R-word- redistribution. But here's where McCain has entered truly dangerous waters.
In this interview, Obama very clearly is speaking of the legacy of slavery. He speaks of how the civil rights movement lead to freedom for blacks, and the right to vote, but didn't redistribute income- and this still remains to be done. He speaks of mistakes the founding fathers made- as everyone acknowledges who has any understanding of the ammendment process in the US constitution. This is of course particularly true with ammendments like the 14th.
I recognize that some conservatives feel that everything is now right with the world, between races, and in regards to civil rights. I suspect- I hope- that those conservatives are a minority even among conservatives. Most recognize that one of the horrible legacies of slavery has been lingering racism and a continued relegation of the majority of blacks to the lower economic classes. Beyond that, there is the slightly more controversial proposal of compensation for slavery. After all, not only was there the broken promise of "40 acers and a mule", but all the wealth in terms of human productivity that was stolen from African lands, and stolen from the Africans themselves, made into slaves. To date there has been no true payment to those defrauded by the American government and American people. But the proposal is not so controversial that is has not been considered by the American Congress at times.
Some combination of these issues is what Obama was obviously referring to in his radio interview. From the context, I suspect that it was more of the former- establishing economic parity between the races in America, to remove the blemish and stain of slavery that shackles us all- rather than the more touchy issue of compensation. He was trying to seek a more just society, and make up for the wrongs that America has perpetrated on her citizens of colour.
And this...this is what McCain was referring to today in his speech, when he said that Obama was being socialist.
Before McCain denigrates calls for racial equality, it might be helpful for him to remember the immortal words of Frederick Douglass.
No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.
9.29.2008
777
Today, the market had it's largest point drop ever. 777 points. As many Christians know, that's a significant number- the most holy number throughout the Bible, a triple of sevens. (This is the real reason why 666 is considered the number of evil- it's one less than seven, and Evil in the Bible is considered not the opposite of Good, but almost at the level of Good. This is why it's so insiduous and deceptive- it looks like the real thing. Also, of course, in ancient Hebrew numerology, 666 fits the alphabetical rendering of Nero's name.)
And, as every Christian Fundamentalist knows, the number 777 is still as significant in real life as the number 666. This can only mean that the point drop was an Act of God. He is judging this nation for its pursuit of wealth and mammon, for its lack of care for the poor and outcast, for its not pursuing justice. Can you say, "Chickens coming home to roost?"
I knew you could.
And, as every Christian Fundamentalist knows, the number 777 is still as significant in real life as the number 666. This can only mean that the point drop was an Act of God. He is judging this nation for its pursuit of wealth and mammon, for its lack of care for the poor and outcast, for its not pursuing justice. Can you say, "Chickens coming home to roost?"
I knew you could.
8.24.2008
Where Your Money Comes From Matters
I'm not a teetotaler. I'm not into beer, but I love a good glass of red wine. I can't stand grape juice for communion; give me the warmth of Christ going down the gullet any day. But I stand strongly against alcoholism, drunk driving, or even drinking to excess. I think most people stand with me on that.
What your wife does for a living matters, and where the money that funds your life, and your campaign, comes from matters. Cindy McCain is worth 100s of millions, and by extension so is John McCain. That money comes from her inheriting the wealth of her father, invested in Hensley & Co., one of the largest distributors of Anheuser-Bush. She remains the owner of that company.
There is nothing wrong in selling alcohol, or being a large distributor of it. It is technically drug dealing, but only technically, because alcohol is a drug, but nothing like marijuana or cocaine. But would I want to have that as my job?
I can say, yes, I would be okay in selling alcohol, as long as I could control who drank it, and how much. I've heard of a guy who bought a tavern in a state that allowed only one bar per county, a long time ago. He cut everyone off before they could be drunk. He'd sell two or three beers per person, and then stop.
We have a moral obligation for every single act in our lifetimes. I have a responsibility for everything I do, and everything I produce. And I could not in good conscience sell something that I know a substantial proportion of my customers would become addicted to, and an even larger number would abuse. Those who are controlled by alcohol lead a life of hopelessness, going from one binge to the next, with damaged relationships and a bottle as king. Prohibition was a failure, but it was based on a sincere desire by progressives to defend women from the attacks of abusive husbands. There are too many ways that alcoholic abuse hurts not only the abuser, but their entire family, their friends, and the rest of society.
Thus there is something troubling about McCain building his campaign and livelihood on the back of wealth created through alcohol sales, and alcohol consumption. If there were some way for a distributor to end abuse, or even severely curtail it, this would be a different matter. But there is not. McCain seeks to be the leader of our country. Regardless of our last Democratic President, we desire a man who will have high personal ethics as much as high corporate ethics. McCain's campaign and livelihood have been built on the sale of alcohol, and therefore upon the misery of others. This I cannot countenance.
What your wife does for a living matters, and where the money that funds your life, and your campaign, comes from matters. Cindy McCain is worth 100s of millions, and by extension so is John McCain. That money comes from her inheriting the wealth of her father, invested in Hensley & Co., one of the largest distributors of Anheuser-Bush. She remains the owner of that company.
There is nothing wrong in selling alcohol, or being a large distributor of it. It is technically drug dealing, but only technically, because alcohol is a drug, but nothing like marijuana or cocaine. But would I want to have that as my job?
I can say, yes, I would be okay in selling alcohol, as long as I could control who drank it, and how much. I've heard of a guy who bought a tavern in a state that allowed only one bar per county, a long time ago. He cut everyone off before they could be drunk. He'd sell two or three beers per person, and then stop.
We have a moral obligation for every single act in our lifetimes. I have a responsibility for everything I do, and everything I produce. And I could not in good conscience sell something that I know a substantial proportion of my customers would become addicted to, and an even larger number would abuse. Those who are controlled by alcohol lead a life of hopelessness, going from one binge to the next, with damaged relationships and a bottle as king. Prohibition was a failure, but it was based on a sincere desire by progressives to defend women from the attacks of abusive husbands. There are too many ways that alcoholic abuse hurts not only the abuser, but their entire family, their friends, and the rest of society.
Thus there is something troubling about McCain building his campaign and livelihood on the back of wealth created through alcohol sales, and alcohol consumption. If there were some way for a distributor to end abuse, or even severely curtail it, this would be a different matter. But there is not. McCain seeks to be the leader of our country. Regardless of our last Democratic President, we desire a man who will have high personal ethics as much as high corporate ethics. McCain's campaign and livelihood have been built on the sale of alcohol, and therefore upon the misery of others. This I cannot countenance.
6.20.2008
Beholden to No One
Everywhere today people are talking about Obama withdrawing from the public financing system. Let's just put the cards on the table right off the bat. Yes, he broke his word, and yes, that's disappointing. He should just admit that. He did say that he would accept public financing, and rigorously pursue this with the Republican candidate.
But it would have been political suicide to accept public financing. Whereas he has raised vast amount more than McCain, and Obama and Clinton together more than double McCain, the RNC has a war chest about 10 times larger than that of the DNC. And the National Committees have no limits on what they can raise and put into the national campaigns. And yes, so far, the only outside groups who have supported candidates have been Democratic ones, most notably MoveOn.org. Does anyone beyond poddy training seriously believe the Republican outside groups aren't far behind?
We seem to be in such great pursuit of the letter of the law that we have forgotten the spirit. Why do we support public financing? For finance reform. And why do we support finance reform? Because we want everything given in Presidential campaigns to be completely honest and ethical. Obama is the only candidate who has refused all money from PACs and lobbyists, insisting on small donations only. Through that method, he has raised more money than any candidate in history. This means he is beholden to no one, and no special interests will control him when he is President- unlike McCain. Which after all was the original purpose behind campaign finance reform. Yes, Obama went back on his word- because he found a better way to be ethical about financial support.
Oh, and thank you Obama, for insisting on only money from those supporting your campaign, rather than from taxpayers in general. I wish the Republicans would get on board with reducing unfair tax burdens, but then, that's why I'm a Democrat.
But it would have been political suicide to accept public financing. Whereas he has raised vast amount more than McCain, and Obama and Clinton together more than double McCain, the RNC has a war chest about 10 times larger than that of the DNC. And the National Committees have no limits on what they can raise and put into the national campaigns. And yes, so far, the only outside groups who have supported candidates have been Democratic ones, most notably MoveOn.org. Does anyone beyond poddy training seriously believe the Republican outside groups aren't far behind?
We seem to be in such great pursuit of the letter of the law that we have forgotten the spirit. Why do we support public financing? For finance reform. And why do we support finance reform? Because we want everything given in Presidential campaigns to be completely honest and ethical. Obama is the only candidate who has refused all money from PACs and lobbyists, insisting on small donations only. Through that method, he has raised more money than any candidate in history. This means he is beholden to no one, and no special interests will control him when he is President- unlike McCain. Which after all was the original purpose behind campaign finance reform. Yes, Obama went back on his word- because he found a better way to be ethical about financial support.
Oh, and thank you Obama, for insisting on only money from those supporting your campaign, rather than from taxpayers in general. I wish the Republicans would get on board with reducing unfair tax burdens, but then, that's why I'm a Democrat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)